User talk:Quadell/Archive 42

Archive 35

←

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Benjamin Harrison judicial appointments is done.

No need for another table - small enough a task to be done by hand. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri

I haven't a lot of time at the moment, but I have looked at this again and it looks a lot more solid. With the expanded prose the list of judges appears less dominant, but still might be considered, at FAC, to unbalance the article. One possible solution might be to hive off the full list to a separate page and retain a shorter list of the currently active judges with this article. My advice would be to keep the article on PR for a bit longer; in a few days' I will read it again with FAC firmly in mind and let you know my further thoughts. Brianboulton (talk) 15:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

James Lawrence Fly

That is a great article! I just nominated it for Did You Know. Jokestress (talk) 15:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, very exciting! And thanks also for adding early history and death info -- I couldn't find that anywhere. Well done. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Merging Gustavo Gelpí

Please see my discussion of your idea re merging Gustavo Gelpí. Thanks, Pr4ever (talk) 12:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Merging Edward Nottingham

I will do the merge later today. It's obvious they are the same person, and Edward Nottingham is the most commonly used name in third party references. Risker (talk) 13:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Already done. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Substub judges.

I have come across a few mainspace entries on federal judges that are really substubs - as with this pre-merge version Denise Cote. That particular entry was a mere 387 characters, including templates and category links, whereas Polbot's autogenerated page was about five times as long (and obviously a lot more informative, even if much formatting is still required). Would it be possible to generate a list of mainspace articles on federal judges which are fewer than, say, a thousand characters? Or, better yet if possible, to ignore text in headers, templates, and category links (which make up the bulk of many of these substubs), and list pages with fewer than 500 characters of actual article text? In most such cases, the article will be so stubby that we'll be better off just moving the page in Polbot's userspace over it. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

 Working – Quadell ^(talk) 17:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, they're listed at User:Polbot/fjc/substubs. There are only a handful, even though I list all with 650 or fewer bytes after categories and templates are removed. Some are worthless, but some have a sentence or two that should be added to the merged article. Feel free to delete that page when you're done. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 17:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! It's done. Those with other info have had the other info incorporated (which in most cases was a note that the judge had sent some famous person to jail). I went ahead and deleted the subpage, too. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

File:40349013 1279eae246.jpg

This is one of my files under my old name. How does one go about renaming a file? Is there a protocol, a button to hit? Or just upload the photo under a different name? - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 4, 2009 @ 05:10

As of right now, the only way to rename an image is to re-upload it at the new name, and delete it at the old name (changing all links to the image as well). This is time-consuming. However, very soon there will be a change to the Wikipedia software that will allow moving images easily. So I wouldn't worry about moving it yet; I'm just tagging these images in preparation for when it's easy to move them. If you like, you can replace {{ifr}} with {{ifr|New Name.jpg}} (for whatever you think would be a better name), and then later a bot will move the image for you. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 05:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it is only used on that one page and to be honest, I can't remember exactly where I go the image. It was one of the first I uploaded. I know it was from Flickr :) I will at that "ifr" tag to the page with the new name and let the bot do the work. Thanks for your help. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • April 4, 2009 @ 05:38

Why not, eh?

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	Thanks for tagging dozens of images with {{ifr}} just because I had the inkling it would be a good idea. Seegoon (talk) 19:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! What a great birthday present! (I've been a Wikipedian five years today.) Keep spreading around the wikilove. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Happy WikiBirthday

I stumbled across your userpage and noticed that today is your 5th WikiBirthday. So congratulations. TillsTalk 15:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Tills beat me to it! r?ana? ^talk/_contribs 19:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, good people! I had a great Wiki-birthday. Here's to another five! – Quadell ^(talk) 02:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Terrorism

I have nominated Category:Terrorism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:Political violence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Cerejota (talk) 03:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for James Lawrence Fly

On April 6, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article James Lawrence Fly, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 07:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Userbox

Hey thanks. :) I didn't have much to do with that article, other than helping to nudge it towards a GA, but that userbox is priceless!  :) BOZ (talk) 02:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

FFD noms

I'd recommend using this tool, which provides a link to users' contributions right after they uploaded an image (for use with orphan images), when going through orphan images. That way you can figure out what they are before nominating them. A few of your nominations look like encyclopedic photos that could be moved to commons if we took a bit more effort to determine what they're of. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm actually using that tool (based on your recommendation at another forum). I couldn't determine their use by doing a quick once-over, but if they can be shown to be useful then great! (I'm also moving to Commons about as many as I'm nominating for deletion, when I can determine what they are.) All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 14:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Great job in identifying some of these! – Quadell ^(talk) 14:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your Happy Wiki-Birthday wishes! Rlendog (talk) 18:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Husein Gradašcevic

How does Husein Gradašcevic.jpg fail WP:NFCC#1 when no free equivalent exists? I give the source, the copyright holder and there's a consensus to keep yet it still gets deleted? PRODUCER (talk) 20:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

NFCC#1 requires that no free image exist or could be created. A new drawing can be made by anyone with that talent. I'm sorry that this is distressing for you, but it has been well-established Wikipedia policy for a long time that we can't use non-free illustrations here if it would be possible to create a free illustration that would serve the same purpose. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 20:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yorick image deletion

Hi, Quadell. I see that you closed the FfD discussion of Image:Tennant_and_Tchaikowsky_as_Hamlet_and_Yorick.jpg as delete, saying "This is is a BBC news image, and our use fails NFCC#2." I showed in the discussion that although this particular copy was sourced to the BBC, it was not a BBC image, but an image copyright to the Royal Shakespeare Company. (See here, image #15.) And, although I recognize that FfD is a discussion rather than a vote, it may be relevant that three of five commenting editors did not think that our use failed NFCC#2. I'd like you to reconsider the deletion. If you still feel that the deletion was appropriate, I may want to take it to deletion review. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the copyright holder. After looking back over the discussion, I still feel that the image violates NFCC#2 and #8. I respect your right to take it to WP:DR, of course; nothing personal. Just drop me a link. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 22:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough.

Deletion review for Image:Tennant and Tchaikowsky as Hamlet and Yorick.jpg

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:Tennant and Tchaikowsky as Hamlet and Yorick.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

RE: King Abdullah hospital

First of all thank you for your care, I have always wondered about this issue, and here comes my answer, about File:KAUH1.jpeg, its a usual picture I took it from one of the university buildings near the hospital, for File:KAUH3.jpeg I created it using wikimapia, and for File:KAUH2.jpeg it was on the site of the university, and I asked for permission in person -as I am a student at JUST where the hospital is- and took it on my USB Maen. K. A. (talk) 22:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Your approval here

Thanks for that. Just curious though: If I wanted to make the bot available for general deliveries, would I need to file a second request for approval? Sorry, I'm pretty clueless on these processes :) Thanks in advance.  GARDEN  15:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you would file it as a new task for an existing bot. Assuming you'd run Robotic Garden for a while with no major problems, it would likely be approved rather quickly. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 15:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi!

Yes, I think I have a pretty good understanding of copyright law. I haven't taken any copyright-specific classes, but I have done a general IP class and have learned a fair amt here on Wikipedia. In truth, copyright classes in law school don't really focus on what old content is PD or not, because that's not really the most interesting intellectually or the most important practically. (A lot more focus on the contours of fair use, etc., which isn't so important here.) But yes, if you have any questions, feel free to ask, and I'll do my best! Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Great, and thanks! An issue that's been plaguing me lately concerns unpublished works, or works that were first published long after they were created. Let me try to break this down into a number of scenarios. Please correct me if any of my assumptions are incorrect.

• Suppose Joe Blow created an image in 1922 and published it that same year. The image is now in the public domain.

• Correct. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• Suppose Joe Blow created an image in 1965 and published it that same year. The image is currently copyrighted (assuming it was published with a clear notice and filed with the USCO, etc.)

• Correct. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• Suppose Joe Blow created the image in 1922, but didn't publish it until 1965. I believe the rules would be the same as if he had created it in 1965, yes?

• Correct. Both the 1909 and 1976 acts deal with dates of publication, not dates of creation. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• Suppose Joe Blow created an image in 1922, and the image was not published until 2003 or later. According to Cornell's factsheet, it would be considered an "unpublished work", and the copyright would last until 70 years after Joe's death. But who holds the copyright? Is the copyright on unpublished works passed down in a will like tangible property? If this isn't specified in the will, (and I assume it usually wouldn't be), how would one know who holds it?

• Copyrights (all copyrights, not just for unpublished works) are passed down like tangible property. If it's not specified in the will, I'm sure it's treated just like other property not specified in the will. I know next to nothing about trusts and estates, though. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• Suppose Joe Blow created the image in 1922 and later died, and Jane Jingleson first published the image in 1965. If Jane did not have the permission of the copyright holder, I assume it would still be an "unpublished work", in the sense that it had never been reproduced and distributed with the consent of the copyright holder. (Cornell's factsheet says "'Publication' was not explicitly defined in the Copyright Law before 1976, but the 1909 Act indirectly indicated that publication was when copies of the first authorized edition were placed on sale, sold, or publicly distributed by the proprietor of the copyright or under his authority." This factsheet doesn't tell me how "publication" was defined after 1976.)

• Authorization is required for publication under both the 1909 and 1976 acts. Law of Copyright (2008), Howard B. Abrams, sections 8:15, 8:27. I don't immediately see anything about unauthorized publications before 1909, but I assume this scenario is rather infrequent. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• If, in the previous situation, we suppose Jane did have the permission of the copyright holders to publish the image, then I assume the situation (in terms of copyright duration) would be the same as if Joe Blow himself had first published the image in 1965.

• Yes, any authorized publication will do. (Most works are published by publishers in any event, not self-published.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• If all this is true, then how long ago can Joe Blow have created the image and it still be in under copyright? If Mr. Blow created the image back in 1790, or 790, but it wasn't published until 1965, would the image still be under copyright?

• I'll have to think about this a bit more. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I just found out something that may help with this: "Duration of Copyright", published by the U.S. Copyright Office. Page 3 has a section entitled "Works in existence but not published or copyrighted on January 1, 1978" which I believe applies to all works created before 1978 but first published between 1/1/1978 and 1/1/2003. It states: "Works that had been created before the current law came into effect but had neither been published nor registered for copyright before January 1, 1978, automatically are given federal copyright protection. The duration of copyright in these works will generally be computed in the same way as for new works: the life-plus-70 or 95/120-year terms will apply to them as well." This "life-plus-70 or 95/120-year terms" refers to the previous section, which described a work as protected for life+70 of last surviving author, if the author is known; or for anonymous or corporate works, "95 years from first publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter." This means that copyright of a photo created in 1905 would have expired in 2000 (assuming the author is not known) if it was first published between 1978 and 2003. Does this sound right to you? – Quadell ^(talk) 17:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I know this is all horrifically complicated, and it may seem academic, but it's quite relevant. We have many thousands of old images on Wikipedia that we assume are public domain because they were created long ago, but where we have no idea when they were first published. Thanks for your time and expertise! – Quadell ^(talk) 23:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: RfA

The second one, not the first. Thanks, — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 20:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

date delinking

Hi Quadell, it is great to see you back! I noticed because you came up on my watchlist, delinking dates. In case you are not aware, there is an Arbcom injunction which affects mass linking or delinking dates. See the "Inj" link beside the date delinking case on WP:RFAR. (sorry I cant easily give a direct link; I'm on a very slow connection this weekend and it would take half an hour to find the link; ask a clerk if you need help finding it) I would hate to see you dragged into this mess! Regards, John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks, good to see you! I knew the case was going on, but I hadn't seen the injunction. "All editors", not just involved parties? That's pretty broad. Hm, I'm not sure what counts as "mass delinking", but I won't push it. Great to run into you! – Quadell ^(talk) 00:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Chevrolet Vega

Thank you so much....(VegavairbobVegavairbob (talk) 12:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC))

You made a claim that: Works first published in the U.S. before 1978 without a clear copyright notice were never copyrighted. Motortrend Magazine itself was copyrighted, and all content that Motortrend created or held the copyright to was likewise copyrighted -- but the magazine didn't create this ad, and didn't hold the copyright, and Chevrolet didn't bother to copyright the ad. In practice, all magazine ads first published in the U.S. before 1978 are in the public domain, unless they have a clear © sign affixed, which is rare. I suppose you will provide a solid source for this copyright claim. I have never heard this before but if it is true it should be acknowledged somewhere on the prose of some non-free or copyright pages but I have not come across it there either. If verified, this advertising image would then be acceptable. ww2censor (talk) 16:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing. The official word on the matter comes from the circular How to Investigate the Copyright Status of a Work, published by the U.S. Copyright Office. It explains:

"The 1909 Copyright Act and the 1976 Copyright Act as originally enacted required a notice of copyright on published works. For most works, a copyright notice consisted of the symbol ©, the word “Copyright” or the abbreviation “Copr.,” together with the name of the owner of copyright and the year of first publication.... As originally enacted, the 1976 law prescribed that all visually perceptible published copies of a work, or published phonorecords of a sound recording, should bear a proper copyright notice. This applies to such works published before March 1, 1989. After March 1, 1989, notice of copyright on these works is optional."

Works first published between 1978 and 1989 without a copyright notice can still be copyrighted if the author subsequently filed a copyright claim with the U.S. Copyright office. But works first published before 1978 without a notice can't be copyrighted, no matter what (unless the publishing was done illegally without the consent of the creator). For a better layman's explanation, see Cornell's copyright factsheet (under "Works First Published in the U.S." : "1923 through 1977") or the University of Pennsylvania's copyright FAQ (under "How do I find out whether the book is in the public domain?"). See also {{PD-Pre1978}}, which has been a valid tag on Wikipedia for years now, and cases #3 and #4 listed at {{PD-US}}. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 17:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting stuff indeed but even though the templates exist, it seems this type of situation is not spelled out anywhere on this wiki's WP or HELP pages that I know of. I must try to remember this scenario for the future. Thanks

BTW, your note about posting on my talk page by User talk:Vegavairbob? does not take into account that I left clear edit summary notes that clearly asked him to stop posting about his image issues on my talk page but to use the appropriate deletion page, which is what they are for and where I had already stated my case. He did it again and I left him a UW-V1 warning adding: Use the deletion talk page if you want to discuss the image you are trying to save and stop vandalising my talk page IMHO he knew full well that he should use the deletion talk page not my talk page to harass me about his continuing image problems. In my opinion I was quite in my right to regard his continuing harassment as vandalism. If he does not upload any more copyright violation images, not ads per your above scenario, he will not have a problem with me again. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear it. I didn't mean to come across as heavy-handed. I hope your editing is peaceful. :) – Quadell ^(talk) 23:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

Five years? It's amazing how time flies, isn't it? I'm surprised I haven't run into you before. Anyway, I hope your Wiki-anniversary is rewarding and stress-free. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 12:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! :) --Loremaster (talk) 17:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Chevrolet Vega

Hello- Thanks again for the valuable info on pre-78 ads. I added two more 1970 ads to article. Had two really cool ones on the awards and reviews subsection i want back in there. It's very long and the two colorful ads really help the subsection. the two ads were deleted- Car of the Year-1971 Vega ad.jpg Chevrolet Vega Ad-Car and Driver Awards.jpg Can I replace them with correct licence? or will they be tagged for speedy removal?

You can replace them, and I see that you did. (The "Don't reupload images" rule is only if you're doing so under the same license. You thought they were non-free before, but now you know they're PD, so it's fine.) I moved the images to The Wikimedia Commons, and I'm watching them there. – Quadell ^(talk) 03:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Also- I have a problem....Although I've spent almost two months on this article, added a specific "problems subsection" to correct a neutrality tag, and the images, in addition to 90% of the text (all but subcompact subsection), I uploaded many non-free images not knowing at first they would all be disputed and deleted. I uploaded a couple of the deleted ones again and ruined my creditability with two administrators and was accused of image abuse. I wanted Chevrolet factory photos in article (to show new vehicles) as I've seen other car articles with them. I uploaded about four or five factory photo scans..all deleted. So, next with only a couple of images left as I found article in February, I dug out my old photos to scan of my previous Vegas I've owned and two of my Grandfathers Vegas in addition to the two newer digital photos I took last year of my two current Vegas still in article. So I dug out my photos, scanned them on my Cannon 310 printer/scanner, downloaded them into my computer, and on the article with free licenses. Stifle has tagged five of the free images and one was deleted already. Stifle thinks I'm simply scanning from something else.

I see that. We shouldn't be deleting images that you created yourself. I understand that Stifle is suspicious, and it's good that he wants to make sure no one uploads non-free images while claiming that they're free... but still, your free images shouldn't get deleted. – Quadell ^(talk) 03:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Go to Chevrolet Vega the green Vega wagon was deleted..I uploaded it again with another upload under it (two green Vegas) with a note to Stifle who put the tag on and a note to Ben W Bell, who deleted it. the note in their talk pages read.... Compare the two images of the green Vega wagons (one has me in it, the other one was deleted from article.) I continued, look at the licence plate on both of the photos of the car taken a year apart.(same plate) I asked them..Do you still think I simply scanned the image from an unknown source, or do you (now) think the deleted image is mine. No reply from Ben Bell yet (who deleted it), but the second upload of the deleted image wasn't speedy deleted (yet) The deleted image was taken by me with a Kodak, and the other photo (with me in it) was taken by my stepfather a year later in 1974 with a Nikon..see the quality diff.

In the deleted image file, I stated I took the photo myself in 1973. It was deleted after a discussion took place on one of the five images in which teb728 said (in so many words) They're probably his (my) photos taken by me, taking my word for it, as I have tagged non-free images correctly and never claimed a non-free to be a free image. another one of the five with no comment was deleted anyway by Ben W Bell stating on deleted file, I admitted it to be a mag scan. Wrong..(wrong image) Stifel states on deleted file I just scanned from unknown source. Is there any way to remove these tags? The only reason Stifle is doing this is because I've uploaded deleted images (thinking I could try again in another discussion)..ok, but I've admitted guilt to this and have apologized, not really knowing all the rules previously. But I've stated, I have not tried to pass a non-free for a free image which teb728 states also in discussion, but Stifle doesn't agree, so the tags remain on the free images, which are all my photos taken by me. There have been no further comments on the remaining files but I hope they wont be deleted at any time if a sensor misses the comments made by teb728.

The tags have to stay on for two weeks, until the discussion finishes up. Once 14 days have passed, and administrator reads the discussion and decides whether the images are free or not. Then either the image gets deleted, or the tags are removed. I'm pretty sure those images won't get deleted, and I commented on the discussion. – Quadell ^(talk) 03:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, Are Chevrolet brochure images (pages or cropped images) public domain as well for pre78?

It depends. If the brochure has a © notice on it, then it's copyrighted. If it doesn't, then it's public domain. – Quadell ^(talk) 03:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Please help with the tags..see discussion on my free images by clicking on the light blue Vega panel image(second rear quarter view) (my car and my photo) this is my car- go to external links in article, car domain.com blog..in blog is a link to this car 71 vega panel on my ride page with my name-Vegavairbob/Robert Spinello-this image is tagged by Stifle. Please help. Thanks By the way- The photo that was deleted (and reuploaded was my grandfathers car)

(VegavairbobVegavairbob (talk) 23:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC))

Hey, do you know about the Wikimedia Commons? It's better to upload free images there, instead of Wikipedia. Images there show up in Wikipedia articles just like they were here -- in fact, I've already moved all your images to Commons, except the ones that currently have deletion tags. You can see your Vega pics at commons:Category:Chevrolet Vega. Images at Commons can be used on other projects besides the English Wikipedia, so in the future, go ahead and upload your own free images there instead.

And on a personal note, thanks for working so hard on the Chevy Vega article! You've really done a lot to improve it, both the text and the images. Sorry you've been having a tough time with the images, but don't get discouraged. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 03:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi- I added four gallery of 1971 Chevy promo photos (Vega body styles) into a gallery. Not sure how to put them into commons.

• Is there a way to make gallery photos a bit larger?
  • If you mean a gallery like that at the bottom of Chevrolet Vega, yes. See Wikipedia:Gallery tag for the syntax. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
• Please transfer File:DeLorean and Vega in 1971.jpg and gallery images to commons.
  • I am willing to, but they need better source information. Do you know any more about the image than "Chevy press release"? Any details you can provide would be helpful, and will help prevent the images from being deleted. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm also concerned about the magazine covers, such as File:Road Test mag. 74 Vega LX.jpg and File:Chevrolet promo poster -2 from 1973.jpg. I doubt the magazines themselves are in the public domain. Even if the underlying photos were not copyrighted, their appearance on the magazine cover with titles and headlines probably are copyrighted. Even if they were reprinted by Chevy without a copyright notice, if the covers were first printed by the magazine then the covers are copyrighted. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello Quadell and Happy Easter to you and your family. Thanks to your expert knowledge of copywrite law the Chevrolet Vega article looks great. It has no non-free images.

• There is one free image I tried very hard to keep in the article. Maybe you can help. It's a magazine photo from January 1975 Car And Driver. This black and white photo was not released by Chevrolet or anyone else. I included a subsection in article- 1973 Vega GT Showroom Stock #0. It is about a winning Vega race car in a race held by the magazine (challenging their readers) in which the magazine's Vega won the race. The photo from the car and driver race review article, shows the car in the final laps in the lead. I was told photo doesn't add to the readers understanding. I think it does, as a 33 year old historic document of a fixed moment in time (not be repeated) it does add to the subsection and is an image that has not been seen other than that one issue of the magazine. I need it in the article. I was told I would need permission to use it. Can I get its deletion reversed. Check my discussion on it. At the end of discussion, I showed how it satisfies WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8. In discussion I was told it failed these two, but I think I proved it doesn't fail. There were no comments posted after my comments on how it satisfies #'s 1 and 2. It was just deleted after that. I used a historic copywrite. Is this correct? The file is File:1973 Vega GT Showroom Stock.jpg The discussion is in Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_March_29#1973_Vega_GT_Showroom_Stock.jpg It was deleted by PhilKnight AnomieBOT April 7th, 2009. Please let me know what you think, and if you can help me restore the image. Thanks in advance.

(VegavairbobVegavairbob (talk) 12:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC))

I'm afraid I would have to agree with the delete voters, that the image doesn't satisfy NFCC#8. It's useful and non-repeatable, but the article is understandable without it. There are very few non-free images allowed on Wikipedia, I'm afraid. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• If I receive permission from Car and Driver to use it, can it be restored? How do I show proof of permission for article?

(VegavairbobVegavairbob (talk))

• • No, I'm afraid permission to use it in our Wikipedia article isn't enough. C&D would have to release the cover under a free license, allowing anyone to re-use this image without asking C&D for permission. And that's not likely for a cover image. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Quadell

How would you suggest breaking apart this sentence:

Even before Han's expansion into Central Asia, the travels of the diplomat Zhang Qian from 139–125 BCE established Chinese contacts with Dayuan (Fergana), Kangju (Sogdiana), Daxia (Bactria, formerly the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom), and knowledge of Shendu (Indus River valley of North India) and Anxi (the Persian Empire of Parthia), all of which eventually received Han embassies.[37][38][39][40][41]

The reason I have parentheses here is to separate (or distinguish) the Chinese geo-political names from the common Western names for these places. Do you have a suggestion on how to keep all the names? Also, are you saying that each one of these kingdoms deserves its own sentence split apart from each other?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

You still around, Quadell? I just made some major improvements to the article. Check out the prose now!--Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I was out. Your improvements are great. I would split that sentence something like this:

Even before Han's expansion into Central Asia, the travels of the diplomat Zhang Qian from 139–125 BCE established Chinese contacts with many surrounding civilizations. Zhang (or Qian? which is family name?) encountered Dayuan (Fergana), Kangju (Sogdiana), and Daxia (Bactria, formerly the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom); he also brought information of Shendu (Indus River valley of North India) and Anxi (the Persian Empire of Parthia). All these (kingdoms? nations?) eventually received Han embassies.[37][38][39][40][41]

My lack of knowledge of these places prevents me from making the change myself. And perhaps the many footnotes would apply to separate sentences? All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 21:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

You're absolutely fine! This version sounds excellent. Zhang is the family name for Zhang Qian. All of these political entities listed were kingdoms.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi again. I just responded to your questions about those three statements that were confusing you a bit. Cheers.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

(Note to self: Han Dynasty. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC))

A timeline...that's an interesting idea. I always assumed readers would be content with the List of Emperors of the Han Dynasty. If having a table like that is not enough, perhaps you could construct a timeline box for that list article (like the one seen in the Egyptian dynasty article)? I'm having trouble thinking of which other article such a timeline could be used in.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the picture caption and added a small paragraph on Buddhism, but I cannot find any immediate source on Han Chinese clothing. This might take a long time. Would you object to the article if I could not find this information in time? This might have to entail a trip to the library, because JSTOR has nothing, and I mean nothing. Google Books is of no help as well. The only thing I can find online is a bunch of worthless blogs.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not something the article needs in order to be featured. It's just a "nice-to-have", as they say. Again, good work! – Quadell ^(talk) 18:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

That's really good to hear, considering how my library only has one good title in this regard: Changing clothes in China : fashion, history, nation, by Antonia Finnane. However, it's checked out right now! Darnit. I'd have to wait for someone to return it to the library before even considering adding any info about Hanfu in the Han article. Cheers.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I looked for journal entries in a couple of my library's online databases, and came up empty-handed. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Eh, don't worry about it. Look at the article now though! What do you think about the new additions?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 23:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, okay, that intro is thorough, scholarly, verbose, and not what I'd meant at all. I'm looking at this from a reader's perspective, in terms of the flow of text and readability. It seemed to me that before, the sci-tech-eng section just dove right into the details, and it needed a sentence or two about why the topic was important. Now its intro is a dense mini-essay on what certain scholars claim about the impact of Han sci-eng-tech taken as a whole. It's detailed and it attributes every opinion, but at the expense or readability. The first sentence is a 75-word monster that introduces several characters not important to the article as a whole. I'm not clear on what the requirements are for sourcing, but wouldn't it do to simply say "The latter part of the Han Dynasty was a unique period in the history of premodern Chinese science and technology, comparable to the incredible pace of scientific and technological growth during the Song Dynasty", and leave the details in the footnotes? It's not like that's a contentious statement, is it? Your research is top-notch and unassailable, but like I said, I'm aiming for maximum readability here. – Quadell ^(talk) 23:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah! I see. So you think I should create footnotes instead? That sounds fine. In fact, you know what I'll do? I like this little part so much that I'll simply transfer it all to Science and technology of the Han Dynasty. I'll still create a footnote, however.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 23:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, since all of that stuff is now in Science and technology of the Han Dynasty, I don't think a footnote for details is even necessary.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

That's great! Thank you for your incredible patience, copyediting, and suggestions. Would you mind if I put our rather lengthy conversation in a collapsible text box (which can be fully viewed with a "show" link)? It would make it easier on the eyes of those who will come to the FAC page and review the article.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Great idea. – Quadell ^(talk) 01:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Well, my RFA looks like it's almost sure to pass (80 to 2, one of which isn't really counted, or 81 to 2 if one counts your [presumably support] vote :), so I just wanted to thank you for nominating me. Honestly, I wasn't expecting the results; I guess that I've done better than I'd thought.

Also, would you mind if I asked you admin-related questions when they come up? Or should I just take them to WP:AN? –Drilnoth (T • C) 02:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy your nom sailed through. It went notably easier than mine. :) I'd be honored if you came to me with admin questions -- I intend to keep coming to you with js questions. You already know the most important rule: don't wheel-war with other admins, even if you're right. (Hard to imagine you doing that.) It's okay to wheel-war with yourself, but not too often or you'll go blind. Oh, and I hear there are admin backlogs! I expect those to all be cleared up by Thursday. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, your RFA does look like it was fun.</sarcasm> Happy it passed.

Anyway, I'm already working on the backlogs. :) –Drilnoth (T • C) 13:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I see! – Quadell ^(talk) 13:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

199 deletes/undeletes/protects your first day. Better let that mop cool down! It's red hot after tonight! – Quadell ^(talk) 08:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Heh... then I go and use Twinkle and delete a hundred pages in about five minutes. Anyway, I didn't get all of the backlogs cleared, but I think that I did okay for my first few days. Would you mind taking a brief look through my logs to see if I made any obvious mistakes? Thanks. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Um... I may not actually go through all 1200 deletions one by one... ...but sure, I'll spot-check tomorrow. – Quadell ^(talk) 02:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like all your protections were good choices (except the one you undid yourself). In fact, Reddit may need protection again if things keep on like they are. Still looking at deletions... – Quadell ^(talk) 15:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

You don't need to go through all of them. :) I'd just like to know if the overall look of what I've been doing is good. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Mostly perfect. But I'm concerned about some of your deletions of redirects to non-existent pages. In some cases, the page has a history, and shouldn't necessarily be deleted -- a vandal could change a page to a redirect to qjcrcerck, and have it speedily deleted as a broken redirect (though I didn't see any of yours the victims of vandalism). But look at the history of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sydney Boys High School/. It looks like several people made legitimate !votes, and then Gimmeetrow manually c&p-merged it into Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sydney Boys High School/archive2, but pointed the redirect to the non-existent Featured article candidates/Sydney Boys High School. (See this edit.) The net result is that the only trail of who said what in this FAC was in the history of the page you deleted. Probably not important in this case, but in other cases it could hide evidence of sockpuppet-voting, rigging, or other nefarious deeds. (Plus there's the GFDL to consider, which is technically violated when history of edits are deleted.)

What do we do about it? I dunno. You could choose to only delete broken rds that have a single edit in their history... but there are a couple bot requests to handle this soon anyway. For the others, it takes some substantial digging. I mean, what the hell happened with this / this? I can't tell.

Anyway, your other deletes are tip-top. Glad to see you're checking the images you send to Commons, and those all look fine too. (The main things to watch out for are (1) Is the description missing or broken? (2) Did the upload break any tags, like the Flickr tag which often breaks? (3) Are there any valid categories?) Thanks for all your work! – Quadell ^(talk) 17:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for looking through some of them; I've restored that redirect. It had been deleted by TW while I was getting rid of all of the redundant/useless FAC pages, and then forgot to look at what they were, thanks for pointing it out. Do you know if that happened with all of those redirects, or was it just that one? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Only the ones where there was a c&p move (or some other funny business). – Quadell ^(talk) 18:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay; thanks. I'll take a look at the redirects which were deleted by TW as having invalid targets. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thankspam

Okay, so I wasn't going to be sending thankspam to anybody, but since you asked here's the bare-basics thankspam message. :) –Drilnoth (T • C) 13:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Needs moar Comic Sans. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Moar thanks

Thanks for approving both my bot requests. Oh, and welcome back, by the way =) –xeno (talk) 17:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure, and thanks for running them! Sorry I didn't get the opportunity to vote in your RfA... seems I was a few minutes too late. If you need anything from an admin, please, let me know. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 18:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

no worries, though I think you're mistaking me for someone else... you've missed my RFA by nearly a year ;p –xeno (talk) 18:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Oops, you're right. I was thinking of Neuro. The other bot-operator with a Greek prefix for a name. :) Sorry about that. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

not a problem =] i was one of the first votes, so maybe that added to the confusion. –xeno (talk) 18:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Howard D. Graves

My pleasure. He was the Supe while I was a cadet and I remember him as being a very intelligent and dignified man.  Ahodges7   ^talk 19:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

vega

Help! Some images were removed today and are now orphaned. Please transfer them to commons. Not sure how to do this yet. Thanks. Also my four image gallery was removed.(these four photos showed all four body styles, as not all are shown elsewhere in the article.) They are all free images. Some were not thumb size, Is that why they were removed? Must they be thumb with captions? Also why can't all images be 250px. some car articles seem to have this size. How does the default size work? Sometimes images are large, sometimes they are very small-they change size. Thanks. (VegavairbobVegavairbob (talk) 15:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC))

Hello again. I'm not sure which images are orphaned, but I think I've moved all your images to Commons, unless they are currently tagged for WP:FFD or WP:PUI. If you click on the "History" tab at the top of the Chevy Vega article, you'll see all the edits made on that article. The last 50 were all by you, so you'll need to go back a ways to see the edit that removed the gallery and resized the images. The edit referred to Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions#Minimum image standards in the edit summary. If you click on that link, you'll see Wikipedia's guidelines on car images. I'm not sure how the default size for images works, but I think it's a default width, and only the height is different for different images. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks, and it's nice to see yourself as a Master Editor! ClonedPickle 23:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Civility

Nominating perfectly good images for deletion without even the courtesy of a note before nom is the HEIGHT of incivility. Does the idiot think I just go around taking happy snaps and uploading them to Wp for my own benefit? No I am trying to build up a decent portfolio of relevant images for this place. He may not like them, you may not like them. Stiff cheddar. People of his (and your?) ilk should realise that there is not one model for perfection around here. For your information the image in question was one of the first used to illustrate the Aldi article and it got deleted peremptorily during a rewrite. Also for your information you are supposed to sign comments on talk pages. Albatross2147 (talk) 00:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Homer Hoyt

Thank you for pointing out that Homer hoyt1.png no longer had a home. I've put it back on the page Homer Hoyt. I thought you deserved a barnstar regards SuzanneKn (talk) 18:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thanks for letting me know about my image SuzanneKn (talk) 18:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

You made my day! Thanks! – Quadell ^(talk) 18:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Dab fixing project

Hi, I've had a quick look at the first section of the dab fixing list. A few comments:

• It's objecting to correctly formatted links to songs, which I think are supposed to be piped to show the formatting with quote marks (eg " A (song) pipes as ""A" (song)" "
  •  Done – Quadell ^(talk) 15:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
• It's objecting to links to dab pages via redirects, which are correct (2 at end of A Christmas Album)
  • I think we disagree there. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
    • It's not just me - see WP:INTDABLINK. My understanding of that is that we link via the redirect, so that all links (as oppposed to redirects) to the dab page can be picked up as links needing disambiguation. Do you disagree that that's what's in the guideline, or disagree with the guideline? PamD (talk) 17:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
      • I wasn't aware that was in the guideline. Odd advice, but it appears well-established. I guess we don't disagree at all. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
        • That's good! I can see the logic: if you do "What links here" for a dab page which is at the base name Foo, then you can split the sheep from the goats if all intentional links are via a redirect from Foo (disambiguation), and all the unintentional links, which need some attention, are actual links. I've been creating "R to dab" redirects merrily for some time, occasionally to use in hatnotes, and more often as "See also"s in dab pages. PamD (talk) 18:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
• It's not picking up on the "multiple blue links" problem, as in A Aa E Ee
  •  Done
• Although it's nice for dab pages to be consistently presented, it doesn't feel as important as the previous creation of dab links. I worry about the existence of so many Foo (whatsit) articles which aren't linked from Foo either by dab page or redirect, whether Foo is a personal name or anything else. I see that some of these are picked up in the new project, but presumably only where the dab page already exists. To me, creating totally missing links seems a higher priority than dab page cleanup - though that might be quite satisfying in its different way.

PamD (talk) 23:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• • You're right on this point. I think I've done all I can do on missing dabs, at least for now. You people really cleaned up! Thanks for all your help, and for your helpful feedback. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• What's happened here: Anhangüera? See A40, section 4. I've spotted a couple of others, eg A20 section 8 Agüero. Presumably a transliteration quirk for some diacritical, perhaps a modified "g"? PamD (talk) 09:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Traced it to Anhangüera, which certainly needs attention but definitely has some blue links. Weird. There's another case at A30 section 18, Allerød as Allerød, and Almas River in 31/9 as AlmaÅ? River, so at least 3 different modified letters involved! Good luck. PamD (talk) 09:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Yeah, that's a problem. It's an encoding issue: my bot is reading special characters wrong. Then it's looking at Agüero (which doesn't exist), and concludes there are no blue links on the page (since it's an empty page). I need to fix that. Thanks again for the feedback! – Quadell ^(talk) 12:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

RfA Thankspam

Thanks to everyone who took the time and trouble to take part in my RfA whether support, oppose or neutral. All comments are valued and will be considered carefully in the coming weeks. Feel free to add more advice on my talk page if you think I need it. SpinningSpark 21:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC) In case you're wondering, the image is a smiley, just a little more aesthetic, but not as serious as the Mona Lisa

Wow

I didn't realize that it has been three years. How time flies. Thank you for the birthday wishes. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 00:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for your participation in my recent Request for adminship. I'm trying to upstage Drilnoth by saying a different thing each time. See, that was different. :)

I notice you referencing D&D a few times here and there; I don't know if you were interested but we have a GA drive ongoing on the project talk page. Unless you're actually interested, I won't say more than that, though. :) (Same thing for the comics project!) Happy editing! BOZ (talk) 02:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You're doing a good job at that, too. :) –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Eh-heh heh... :) BOZ (talk) 17:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Wiki-birthday thanks

Thanks for the greeting. I see lots of "thank you" messages on your talk page for a variety of reasons, which says a lot about the kind of person... or, at the very least, the kind of Wikipedian... you are. It's a pleasure to meet you, and thanks again. :) -- edi(talk) 13:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Woo, pretty award! Thanks very much, and cheers to you too. :-)> [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 20:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Image deleted? Open discussion closed?

Why was File:Heart1973 BC.png deleted? The deletion of this image is under discussion, and the discussion has not concluded.
Why did you "close" the discussion? The most recent contribution was just over an hour before you "closed" it.
Please restore the image and re-open the discussion. Pdfpdf (talk) 04:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The image had been discussed for over 5 days. After 5 days, images at WP:FFD can be processed by any administrator, even if people are still talking about it. It was clear that the consensus was that the image needed to be deleted, so I acted on that. I understand you're disappointed, and I'm sorry to hear it, but that's just how Wikipedia works. – Quadell ^(talk) 04:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps. What about closing an open discussion? Pdfpdf (talk) 05:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

All discussions are "open" until someone closes them. – Quadell ^(talk) 05:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, obviously. However, isn't it unusual for someone external to and not involved in a discussion to close it without warning those involved in the discussion? Pdfpdf (talk) 07:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

No. It's better for someone uninvolved to close the discussion. I have no opinion about Heart; if someone involved closed it, there could be accusations of bias. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Mmmm. I hadn't thought of that reason. Fair enough. Thanks for the answers and explanations. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

... I'm just used to people taking it personally and becoming abusive when images are deleted, and I was bracing myself for a personal attack (that never came). ... All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 13:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. It's a sad state of affairs that WP seems to have descended into. I used to think it was a fun place; these days I find my encounters with "nice" people have become fewer and further apart. Strangely, however, this episode has exposed me to one of the "nicest" (calmest, most helpful, even kind) Wikipedians I've come across in ages, so "it ain't all bad". Never-the-less, I still have absolutely NO desire to become an admin and turn myself into a target for abuse. Thanks for your note; it's always nice to read something that's not abusive. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

(P.S. Are you an admin on en:WP? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC))

Yes I am. In fact, I was the 137th person to be made an admin, back in 2004. If you need an admin for anything, let me know.

BQZip is quite a busy bee! I see him everywhere. I don't think he's an admin yet, but I'm sure he will be before long.

I highly value those editors who can disagree without being disagreeable, and can keep a sense of humor through everything. User:Drilnoth, a new admin, is a model in that regard, I'd say. (A D&D enthusiast with well-developed social skills? Amazing!)

All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 13:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Vega non free image

Hello Quadell-

The image i asked you about that was deleted is featured within the magazine, not the cover. It is a black and white image taken of a Vega on Lime Rock Racetrack, Conn. in the final laps of a race, in the lead. (about to win it) It was used in Car and Driver January, 1975: Patrick Bedard's editorial column article about the Vega (he drove) in Car and Driver's Showroom Stock Challenge III in October, 1974. He's still a writer for the magazine.

Is it possible to gain permission to use this image for sub-section: 1973 Vega GT Showroom Stock #0 in Chevrolet Vega? Also- Is it ok to use an image without a thumb/caption in the article? I would like to use an image without a frame around it, which thumb gives it.

Thanks (Vegavairbob71.167.68.69 (talk) 08:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC))

Hello again. Sorry for the confusion -- it's often difficult to tell which image you mean. If you can link to the image, that will help me. Just type [[:File:Imagename.jpg]], and that creates File:Imagename.jpg.

If the writer took the photograph, then you have a chance at getting permission. If you'd like to try to contact him, a helpful guide is at User:Videmus Omnia/Requesting free content.

I don't think it would be good to use a non-thumbnail image in this came. Our Style manual for images says "Generally, use the thumbnail option", and "Photographs and other graphics should always have captions..." See that page for more info. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 14:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Noticeboard

Would you have a look? We seem to agree that the request number 6 can't be done as scheduled. Can you updated your decision accordingly? -- User:Docu

I don't believe further BAG action is needed at this time. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Saddened by your deletion of File:Sdar2tn.jpg

I'm saddened by your deletion of File:Sdar2tn.jpg. It was a good/only example of a NZ slouch hat and since I don't live in NZ irreplaceable. Your deletion of the file illustrates the short comings of Wikipedia. Ozdaren (talk) 11:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. You'll be glad to know, though, that there are many Wikipedians who live in New Zealand. I'm sure that if an image is needed, one of them will create one. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 13:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Memo to myself

Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags/Public domain/Mistagged images

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri

GA E District MO I passed it for GA but have serious reservations. Please try to address these and continue to work on the article. It is discouraging to fail so I've given the article a barely pass GA. TeacherA (talk) 01:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Economy Car

hello- You have been very helpful. I need your opinion and help on my contribution for Economy cars. It was reverted pending a discussion. I was told my contribution is not neutral. That I'm a biased. Please look at my paragraph on the Vega which has 4 citations and also mentions five other GM small economy cars linked to the Vega. The few sentences left in are negative biased, cited from one quote thirty years ago and is used out of context, but it is chosen over my contribution which is, in my opinion, more informative, neutral and well written. This is becoming more frustrating. I wasted several hours getting that small section just right to have it deleted. this hasn't happened before. Thanks !VegavairbobVegavairbob (talk) 07:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC))

I've looked into it, and I think your edits deserve to be incorporated into the article. I did my best to edit the article in a way that includes all points of view, and I commented on Talk:Economy car. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 13:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• You are the best!! Your revision is just right. Thanks again for your help. !VegavairbobVegavairbob (talk) 15:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC))

Hi, Quadell. Please revisit Talk:Economy car. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C21:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. – Quadell ^(talk) 01:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• Hello Quadell-

This guy won't stop. He is showing in the Economy car talk that I moved the Vega ahead of the AMC Gremlin in the intro. This was done because the Vega paragraph is first (it was that way) and there is no paragraph on the Gremlin. The cars were listed in intro by the order in which they appear, below, in article. He thinks I listed the Vega first for another reason. I left it second in intro as he reverted it, even though it is reviewed first. Why should I have to deal with this. It's just a waste of time. (VegavairbobVegavairbob (talk) 00:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC))

Try not to take it personally. You won't get along with everyone, and some people will misinterpret your motives. The important thing is that the article is continually improving. Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot helps me when I get frustrated. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 01:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Your email regarding the picture for clamp

I'm sorry I did not reply to ukexpat request sooner who already told me that it would have to email the copyright holder sooner as I have also emailed John (Phoenix) Brown requesting that he grant the use of the image under the GFDL license. I was wondering if I should tell him not to reply to my emailas, although I did use an email based off of here as you did, I did not include Wikipedia's image policy, so the email is not as high quality. My original reply can be found back at the Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Clamp. AngelFire3423 (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks alot for the image =) AngelFire3423 (talk) 15:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Thanks for the barnstar and the travel suggestion! Honduras is definitely on my maybe list. Currently I'm thinking a couple months on the go somewhere in Asia or Africa, then a month at home, then maybe a couple months living somewhere in Latin America and doing some volunteering. (And maybe studying for the California bar, because I think I will want to get that out of the way for later...) I'm excited about the Latin America idea because my Spanish is decent but I think I could make a lot of progress if I were forced to use it all the time. I feel like I meant to respond to something you asked me a while ago, but now I don't remember what it was. So if there's anything left unanswered, please remind me! Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

You're probably thinking of this edit. I'm pretty confident about it at this point, though.

It's so wonderful of you to be willing to spend your time volunteering! It shouldn't be surprising; it's what we're all doing here on Wikipedia, after all. But it's still inspiring to see. What area of law will you be specializing in?

Also, some of us have been discussing here about creating a new WikiProject for dealing with images. It's bare outline is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media; hopefully it will blossom into something worth joining soon. Of course your expertise and work ethic would be most appreciated!

All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 20:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Chevrolet Vega non-free image

My Quadell-Hello

File:1973 Vega GT Showroom Stock.jpg for Chevrolet Vega was in Files for Deletion/2009 March 29 1.5 there was a discussion.

After covering misc. comments like its for decoration, etc. It got down to- all I had to do was show how it satisfies WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#8 Please check this discussion for my answers in the discussions on this image. I think I stated my case...It would be the only non-free image in the article if you can get it back for me. It's the most important image, I think for the entire article! If you'd like to see it, do I have to download another image on the above file upload form?

Deleted April 7th, 2009 Thanks and regards, (VegavairbobVegavairbob (talk) 23:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC))

(Since I'm an administrator, I can see deleted images.) I hate to bring you bad news, but I'm afraid this image doesn't satisfy NFCC#1 and #8. It's used to show a Vega pulling ahead in a specific race... but the reader has already seen the car, and has already read about the outcome of the race. So the image isn't necessary for the reader to understand what happened. It's unfortunate, but there are some good images we just can't use because they're not free. Sorry. – Quadell ^(talk) 02:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Did you look at my comments in discussion in the files for deletion? What did you think of my case? Also, one final point.. The reader hasn't seen the actual winning car which is the subject of the entire section and text. The photo is the actual car that won the race. Do you mean they've seen a Vega like it (in the article, for instantance?) A winning race car is one of a kind. This is one of only two known images of it and the only one showing it in the race-an image of it frozen in time..you can't replace that with text or another image. Readers of the 1975 magazine saw it 33 years ago, not since. If it means anything or could help, when I re-uploaded it, I changed title to Car and Driver's 73 Vega GT Showroom Stock #0 (describes the car as the one in the race as described in article) If I recieve permission from Car and Driver, can it be used? Thanks again for your help and patience. (VegavairbobVegavairbob (talk) 03:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC))

I did see your comments in the discussion, but we still can't use that image in that article. The article isn't primarily about any specific Vega; it's about Vegas in general. We don't need to see any particular Vega -- not even the most important Vega ever -- in the article. Now in an article about that particular car, a non-free image may or may not be warranted. But in the Vega article, it wouldn't be. (As an analogy, the "Hotel California" cover is valid in the Hotel California article, since you need to see the cover to fully understand the album. But the cover wouldn't be acceptable in The Eagles article.)

You asked about getting permission from Car & Driver. Maybe, but it's complicated. You would have to get the copyright holder to agree to allow anyone to use it, not just Wikipedia. Wikipedia only uses free images (except under the strict NFCC rules), and a non-free image is still a non-free image, even if the copyright holder gives us his blessing to use it. So you'd have to ask the copyright-holder to license the image under a free license, so that we (or anyone) could reuse it, and even modify it, even for commercial purposes. If C&D holds the copyright, I can tell you right now, they'll say no. But if the photographer holds the copyright, then you have an outside chance. The first thing you'd need to do is contact C&D and say you're interested in licensing that image, and could they please tell you who to contact. If they say that the photographer holds the copyright, then you can contact the photographer and ask him. There's some great information on how to do this at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. But the odds aren't with you. Sorry. – Quadell ^(talk) 22:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

My Quadell, Thanks for taking the time to explain everything. You gave me an idea. If I make an article on that car, can I use the image with a non-free historic licence (or appropriate licence), based on my comments in the discussion? (VegavairbobVegavairbob (talk) 06:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC))

Only if (a) the car no longer exists, and (b) there's consensus that seeing the car is needed to fully understand the article. I think b should be no problem. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Quadell- I will write the article. any way you can re-insert the deleted photo, or should I upload a new one. The one that was deleted was nice- fixed (noise) and reduced with someone's help. which licence, Historic? any minimum length required? (VegavairbobVegavairbob (talk) 23:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC))

As for the license, I answered below. Yes, I am able to undelete the image, but first you have to write the article. There is no minimum length, but you have to have at least on reliable source on the topic. – Quadell ^(talk) 23:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)